Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 366 U.S. 82 - In Re Anastaplo

In Re Anastaplo’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

147
cited by 147 later decisions
53
cited 53 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2003
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 147 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2003 · most notably District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman (1983), Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)

45 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions

87019611970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1 (Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 1992)

Relies on Speiser v. Randall · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Yates v. United States · American Communications Ass'n v. Douds · Barenblatt v. United States

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““As regards the questioning of public employees relative to Communist Party membership it has already been held that the interest in not subjecting speech and association to the deterrence of subsequent disclosure is outweighed by the State’s interest in ascertaining the fitness of the employee for the post he holds, and hence that such questioning does not infringe constitutional protections. With respect to this same question of Communist Party membership, we regard the State’s interest in having lawyers who are devoted to the law in its broadest sense, including not only its substantive provisions, but also its procedures for orderly change, as clearly sufficient to outweigh the minimal effect upon free association occasioned by compulsory disclosure in the circumstances here presented.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““We have also held in Konigsberg that the State’s interest in enforcing such a rule as applied to refusals to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party outweighs any deterrent effect upon freedom of speech and association, and hence that such state action does not offend the Fourteenth Amendment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.